McCain’s Presidential Campaign Chairman Predicts the Demise of the Republican Party
Written by: Joe Morris Doss

Steve Schmidt is a bright, politically experienced, and honorable man who greatly admired John McCain as a War hero, effective Senator, and fellow Republican. Schmidt was proud to run his campaign. Nevertheless, Schmidt realized that the Republican Party had come to a point that it was going to be very difficult to elect a standard bearer to national office. He reached for “a game changer” and recommended Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. Aside from obvious campaigning talent, she represented the crucial part of the Republican Party that had come to dominate their “base” of support: evangelical Christians, and he hoped her ability to get them all out to vote for his candidate would make the difference.

Steve Schmidt learned his lesson. If you have seen the movie, “Game Changer,” you know that he soon realized that his choice was not only a mistake, but disastrous. It was disastrous not because she hurt the ticket, but because she was not qualified or fit, in any number of important ways, to serve as President — the most important qualification of a Vice-President. The enormity of his mistake overwhelmed him, to the extent that he was the consultant to the movie that made that mistake so obvious.

What Steve Schmidt realized was that his mistake was THE mistake being made by the Republican Party. Last week, just before the second debate, Schmidt articulated why he thinks the crucial mistake the Republican Party has made, and from which it seems incapable of freeing itself — the Grand Ol’ Party, that he had thought of as, “…one of the great institutions of the world,” and on behalf of which he spent his career — is so deeply in trouble. Hypocritical forces, exemplified by religious conservatives who exploit their church’s theological positions as an excuse to support their political, cultural, and social views, have captured it. He spit out the following thoughts about the Trump campaign:

“It has exposed the intellectual rot in the Republican Party. What this exposes goes much deeper into the Republican Party as an institution.”

“With the complicity of much of the leadership of the Republican Party. It has been building for some time.”

He terms the Trump candidacy a disgrace of “unimaginable magnitude to the country… almost impossible to be able to articulate.”

“This exposes a massive hypocrisy inside the Republican Party. Think about people like Gary Falwell, Jr., people who claim to be religious, or evangelical Christians who are apologist for this (Trump’s) behavior….It has exposed at a massive level… the modern day money-changers in the Temple.”

“Mike Pence says, “I’m a Christian; I’m a conservative; I ‘m a Republican, in that order.” If that’s true how did Mike Pence stay on this ticket, unless ‘I’m a career politician’ precedes it all?”

“In this fusion of religion to political conservatism is a toxic element in our politics,” “This hypocrisy is on display for all to see.”

What we are witnessing right now may well be the collapse of the Conservative Movement that has dominated American political and social life for almost three generations.

It began, let us say, with Barry Goldwater’s principled call from “The Conscience of a Conservative.”

The movement balked with JFK, LBJ’s Great Society, and the Watergate reforms, but after events that overwhelmed the United States and the Carter candidacy, it became established under Reagan.

The Conservative Movement captured the Republican Party, which cast aside it’s broadly based tradition to become the conservative party in the United States.

The Conservative Movement expanded on its domination up to this point, at which Trump’s nomination has led to the spectacular splintering during the campaign.

By the time the smoke clears after the election, either the Conservative Movement will have lost enough of its control of the Republican Party to have to search for another way to operate, or the Republican Party itself will break into factions that will lead to its demise sooner than later.

One way or another we will see a major political realignment in the United States, perhaps radical enough to drive constitutional rearrangements.

The Villains:

The decision that equated money with speech, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. From that point forward money began to control politics. That decision needs to be overturned or to have a constitutional amendment so that we can get money out of elective politics, at least to the extent of other democracies.

The billion-dollar-behind-the-scenes controllers of politics, ranging from the use of foundations for personal enrichment and ideological political causes to all sorts of ways to engage in elective politics. The clandestine and manipulative formation of the Tea Party is a good example. (See “Dark Money.”) Particularly offensive is the way they have hidden motives, goals, and activities, while convincing the country to paint all big contributors of money with the same brush – summarized as “Wall Street.”

The Trump-like, fascist-like, white nativists have been given a place at the political table today. During most of American history such radical opinions have been relegated to prejudice, ignorance, and anger over personal losses or social and economic failures. This “extreme right wing” has been at the table since the midterm election during the first Clinton Administration, though normally identified as ideological conservatives. First they were Clinton haters, then they were Obama haters, but their real frustration is broader than persons, political positions, or movements.

The fundamentalist Evangelical churches became hypocritically and improperly engaged in elective politics to impose their conservative, and often oppressive, moral and political perspective on society as law. For too many evangelicals – certainly not all, but too many, and certainly for almost all of the leaders in their political combat – this has been a matter of the tail wagging the dog, in that they are part of a culture that is socially, economically, and politically conservative and then learned how to use their religious clout politically, rather than being a of people of faith who are religiously convicted of certain conservative views.

The Roman Catholic Church’s long-standing obsession, perhaps prejudices, regarding issues that protect women’s rights and that touch on the hot rail of sexuality and procreation. At the top of that list is the over-any-top, popularly accepted conclusion, that abortion is the killing of children. The Roman Catholic Church has allowed itself to be co-opted by the fundamentalist Evangelical churches in opposing social and cultural reforms, not only undercutting its own institutional moral standing but that of Christianity. The inevitable hypocrisy regarding these positions was revealed in the sexual abuse of children in religious institutions and by the ordained.

The “establishment” leadership of the Republican Party, which brought their party to this state of affairs by embracing (1) the billion-dollar-behind-the-scenes political money, (2) the improper engagement of fundamentalist evangelicals, (3) the Trump wing of the right wing, (4) the conservatives of the Roman Catholic Church regarding “the culture wars” while ignoring its repeated calls for social and economic justice, and (5) making full and cooperative use of Fox News and prejudiced radio talk shows as their primary voices.

Ronald Reagan, for turning the country from a respect for government as, in Lincoln’s great insight, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” into “the problem.” This negativity had more to do with the misgovernment of the following era than perhaps any other factor.

Fox News, that falsely claimed the objectivity of journalism, was the sole source of news in many areas of the country, and allowed many conservatives to live in a bubble that includes widely discredited ideas like climate change science is a hoax and the President is not an American citizen.

Opposition to globalization, instead of coming to grips with the realities in order to prosper America and help the stranger in other lands.

Caveat: A friend trained and proved in political observation warns that, “At this point, I think we are witnessing the “splintering” of the conservative movement, more than its “collapse.” I say this because they are still in control of most state governments and may (or may not) still control at least one of the national legislative branches after the November elections. The conservative movement has trouble with high turnout (e.g., presidential) elections, but usually bounces back in off year elections when voting by progressives declines. After the approaching elections, we may conclude that they are so split that they have collapsed, but it may be too soon to say.”

A Comparative Look at the Core Beliefs of Jesus and Mr. Trump
Written by: Joe Morris Doss

At the Threshold is not in the business of judging the claims of people to be a Christian, and when someone running for office says they are a believer we take them at their word. However, we do accept a responsibility to place before our readers the clearly stated beliefs of a candidate for President of the United States so that they can be compared to the core and unchallenged Christian beliefs.

Forgiveness:

Jesus offers us forgiveness for our sins, “For,” as St. Paul proclaimed: “all have sinned and fallen short….”

Donald Trump said last year that he has never asked God for forgiveness. When questioned by CNN’s Jake Tapper, Trump said ”I am good. I don’t do a lot of things that are bad.” Then, when challenged by conservative commentator Cal Thomas, Trump said, “I hope I don’t have to ask for much forgiveness,” and immediately turned to his real and personal concern about that issue: “I think I will be doing very well during the election with evangelicals and with Christians.”

The Cross:

Jesus, who was cursed, humiliated, and crucified by the powerful said, “…my strength is made perfect in weakness;” “Blessed are the meek…blessed are the poor in spirit.” St. Paul said, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block…and foolishness…(to others).”

As President, Trump would function under the rubric: “Might Makes Right.” He has declared – often – that what counts is power, and that the way “the score” is kept in this society is “money.” Trump’s “gospel” is success, and precisely in the terms of what Paul names as the “world’s wisdom,” which is revealed in the cross as “foolishness.” In his book, any soldier who lets him or herself get captured, even if that person’s behavior proves heroic, is “a loser.” His confusion about strength and weakness extends to the church. Speaking to a gathering of pastors, he chided them, “You don’t use your power.” (“You’re…powerful. Because you have men and women, you probably have something like 75, 80 percent of the country believing. But you don’t you your power.”) What Trump admires is not meekness, or any sort of impoverishment, but only strength, worldly success, and power. (Raise your hand if you can imagine him embracing “spiritual poverty,” or grasping even a tiny bit what this strong and lasting Christian tradition means.)

The Truth:

Jesus: The truth will set you free.

Donald Trump uses falsehoods that he feels free to contradict with other falsehoods. For Donald Trump there is no “truth,” and no “facts.” As conservative commentator Michael Gerson put it, “It is not surprising that Trump inhabits his own factual universe in which truth is determined by usefulness and lies become credible through repetition.” Gerson listed some examples by use of statements he made and then flatly denied during the first debate: “When confronted with his claim that global warming was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, Trump replied, ‘I did not [say it].’ He did. When Trump’s claim that he could not release his tax returns because of an IRS audit was exposed as false, he still insisted on it. When charged with saying he could personally negotiate down the national debt, he said this was ‘wrong.’ The charge was right. When Trump’s transparently deceptive claim to be an early opponent of the Iraq War was debunked, he doubled down in a babbling defense, citing Sean Hannity as he ultimate arbiter.” In that debate Trump again repeated that which finally drove the NY Times to use the word “lie”: the claim that Clinton aides started the question of our first black President’s American birth (in 2008).

Enemies:

Jesus: love them; pray for them.

Trump: Demonize them. Dehumanize them. The person who disagrees with Mr. Trump, stands up to him, or oppose him, will be declared worthless, stripped of dignity, and made the object of derision. Each human being is, in his view, either “a winner” or “a loser,” and there is no more awful thing in his book than to be “a loser.” This attitude is central to his campaign, it is central to how he works (as those of us who found ourselves having to work with him almost always discovered), and it seems to be central to his belief system.

Discipleship:

Jesus: Followers are to be “the salt of the earth,” “…do justly, and to love kindness and mercy, and to humble yourself and walk humbly with your God.” Christians are to defend human dignity, welcome the stranger in our midst, stand for justice, offer the blessing and dispense the grace of God, behave as agents of reconciliation where there is brokenness and division.

Trump: ‘nuf said, I would think. Surely so, if attention is being paid at all to his campaign of “walling-off” and “rejecting” and “condemning” and “dividing” and, and, and…

Conclusion: Whether or not Mr. Trump is a Christian, the worldview he proclaims and represents is absolutely incompatible with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

Americans feel that we, as individual citizens, lack agency – a sense that we have too little say in what is going on and that we are relatively helpless to do anything about what bothers or concerns us. At the Threshold is offering a series that is intended to examine the causes of that frustration.

Scene: a bar in Chelsea, New York CityDate: Spring, 1970Event: A Seminary Class on Issues of Moral Theology in American SocietyGuest: CEO of a major Madison Avenue PR Firm

Student Question: What is the strength of modern advertising?CEO: The ability to sell anything, anything at all.

Student Question: What is the weakness of modern advertising?CEO: The ability to sell anything, anything at all.

Student Question: What is the most vexing moral issue in the field of advertising?CEO: The ability to sell anything, anything at all.

Student Question: Please explain.CEO: Let me put it this way. Our firm refuses to advertise for the sale of cigarettes, because we know enough to know that they kill. They cause cancer. Someday that will become accepted public knowledge, and in that day we so not wish to find ourselves explaining to our children why we chose to convince people to kill themselves. That’s the deal. We have a moral responsibility to choose what to sell, because we can convince people to buy anything.

Student Question: You are saying that you can convince people to kill themselves.CEO: Oh yes. We can make people want what is dangerous enough to kill them – probably even if they know it will. So we don’t advertise cigarettes.

Student Question: What else do you avoid selling?CEO: God help our democracy, which may not survive our ability to sell candidates.

Americans know they are being manipulated by advertising, and except for those who use it, most people claim to hate it. But they embrace it.

Americans claim that they are sick and tired of the way campaigns come down to raising money for TV, sound bites, and negative campaign spots. But watching them over and over is how they make up their mind.

Americans claim to hate the way candidates are “handled,” the way they rely on an invented persona instead of genuine individuality, the way they “stay on message” instead of opening up to offer honest and creative ideas, the way they say what is safe and contrived instead of stating personal beliefs. But these are the very campaign techniques that work to convince American votes.

We claim to hate the selling of our political leaders, yet we force our candidates into the “PR product-for-sell” roles because advertising sells. We just keep making the empty content of PR work, for buying commodities and for the democratic election of political leadership.

In so many ways, while lamenting our lack of agency due to the manipulative ability of PR to sell us, we choose to go along with the shaping of the political market and the marketing process. We not only go along, we rely on it.

No single group has been worse about all of this than the parts of the church that have entered into the process of elective politics. Ever since Reagan gave an important role to the moral majority, churches Catholic and Protestant and non-denominational Christians have bowed to PR marketing and jumped into “the game.” The result is that the church has been wounded and weakened, in sharp decline institutionally in membership and moral authority. It is time for this to cease.

Masses have turned to the candidacy of Donald Trump as a reaction against “the sell,” seeming to overlook how this, in so many ways, is the very climax of political salesmanship – using every technique, going from old standard theories like the “big lie” to new lessons learned with reality TV. He has been sufficiently discovered and cannot be elected, but we know there are creatures lurking in the background darkness, taking notes and learning.

On the other hand, surely there must be smart and well intentioned people who see new opportunities for the political process, new ways to offer themselves or to find and bring forward candidates in whom they can believe and offer them to an American public that is genuinely at rope’s end with “the sell.”

One of the leading “mad men” of the 60’s, a Madison Avenue PR giant who saw what was developing raised the issue: God help our democracy, which may not survive our ability to sell candidates.

The question seems wildly radical and the negative answer seems unimaginable. But in fact the question remains an open one. Pray sisters and brothers of the church, pray and prayerfully decide to do something about it.

(Disclaimer: Your reporter was not present at the class, but the accuracy of what was communicated is certainly verifiable.)